sf says...

"OMG, our beloved Emperor is gone! (sorta') But don't worry: the Democrats are fanning the flames of crazy, so it's just a matter of time before they run things again."

Monday, October 31

At one time leaking classified info got you tried and convicted; no longer, at least if you're Hilliary

Eons ago--way beyond the memory of any journalist or Democrat--folks who were "careless" in handling secrets were prosecuted: Petraeus told his mistress secrets, Scooter Libby was accused and convicted of revealing the identity of a CIA employee (who was actually outed by a Democrat).

Liberals thought Snowden was great, leaking secret info. That was before he helped leak info damaging to Democrats.

But of course laws don't apply to powerful Democrats like Hilliary. So hey, why not elect her?

We really need this person in the White House

For one thing, it's a setup: Comey has no intention of prosecuting or investigating the new emails. He wrote the 3-paragraph letter to congressional committee chairmen deliberately to bottle up any revelations, and to ENABLE Hillary and the MSM to claim this was a partisan hit job designed to throw the election to Trump.

Sure enough, every Democrat-supporting mainstream media hack immediately went into the total-defense mode, claiming Comey is a partisan *for the Republicans.*

But use your head: after he blatantly and totally mis-characterized the law regarding mis-handling classified information--claiming one had to show "intent," and that "no responsible prosecutor" would indict someone for grossly compromising top-secret info unless the person did so intentionally.

I've had a top-secret clearance and I can say that Comey's statement was bullshit. As everyone who's ever worked with classified knows. Moreover, Clinton's actions were totally intentional. But we'll leave that for another post.

If you rely on the mainstream media for your news, all you've probably heard is that the FBI is looking into Hilliary's emails *yet again*--and haven't we heard enough about that? Can't they just 'move on' and leave the poor woman alone?

Yeah. So you have no idea what happened. And of course that's not your fault, as you depend on the Mainstream Media to tell you the truth.

Hahahahaha! That cracks me up every time.

So let me bring you up to speed on what's happened and what it means.

First, Comey is a total Hillary supporter, as shown by his mis-characterization of the law to let her off for compromising TOP-SECRET info--let alone the millions he's been paid by various arms of the Clinton foundation.

So why write the letter? What could possibly have forced his hand? Easy: After it was discovered that Weiner had been sexting a 15-year-old, the federal law against child sex predators triggered the FBI to go into reflexive "get that child molester" mode--which allows agents to seize every electronic device in the suspect's home.

Every. Electronic. Device.

No one EVER imagined the agents would find Hilliary's "deleted" emails on Weiner's laptop.

In searching every file on the laptop--which the procedure for child-porn requires them to do--agents reportedly found a huge number of emails--a "law enforcement source" tells one news agency that the number is "in the five figures"--to Weiner's wife--Hillary's closest aide for over 20 years, Huma Abedin. While no one has said whether those emails were to or from Hilliary, the fact that Comey specifically said they were revisiting the matter of Hillary's emails strongly suggests she's on one end or the other.

But since the head of the FBI already said he'd never indict her for what the investigation had already found, why would new emails be a problem? It's almost certainly because some of those emails discussed sensitive overseas developments--breaking events she'd need to know about while she was weighing down the office of SecState.

Those developments would have been explained in the original email. And by default, most email programs automatically include the previous exchanges with each reply.

But important, busy people never take the time to delete the prior exchanges--as shown by the Wikileaks emails. And it's likely that for events overseas, many of those exchanges would likely show information captured by "signals intelligence"--electronic traffic intercepted by the U.S.

The type and origin of the signals the U.S. intercepts overseas are among the most highly-sensitive information in government. When the FBI agents found emails referencing these intercepts the law obligated them to report those findings up the chain.

At that point a mundane sex investigation involving an under-age girl and a former Democrat congresscritter suddenly blew up, big-time.

And we're just getting started.

If Comey hadn't so brazenly lied about the law back in July, he might have been able to cover this one up. But at least some of the FBI agents who's worked on the investigation of Hilliary's email server were honest, and knew breaking that law didn't require intent. That is, her acts definitely warranted prosecution. And when Comey told congress that the decision not to indict was "unanimous" these honest FBI agents were justifiably angry. It was clearly yet another case of some people being above laws that less-powerful people had to obey.

So Comey knew that if he refused to acknowledge the new discovery he'd never be able to keep rank-and-file agents from leaking word of the discovery. That would be a problem. But clearly, he could have pretended to be consulting with top officials of the just-us dept (Loretta "the Constitution isn't the law" Lynch) for another week, in which case the election would be over with no damage to his client.

So the huge question is, why did he write to congress now if he didn't have to? It's not a matter of--as the Left is claiming--pressure being put on Comey by Republicans in congress, since he can't be fired.

Consider this: When someone does something seemingly against their own interest, when not forced to do so, there's always a compelling reason.

That's true here, and in this case it's brilliant: By making the announcement, Comey can plausibly claim that Bureau procedures prevent him from revealing any information--cuz it's "an ongoing investigation," right? This lets Hilliary, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media claim his letter to congress is purely and totally an attempt by a partisan Republican (yes, Comey is nominally a Republican!) to sabotage her campaign. She's already asked that Comey explain the details of what the bureau found, and will then claim that his refusal to do so proves that this is a partisan hit job!

It's a cunning strategy. And of course the members of the Mainstream Media are all eager to cooperate. One of the first I could find is from the WaPo--and the headline alone is a magnificent piece of pro-Clinton propaganda: "A British tabloid story is the reason for Hillary Clinton's new nightmare."

Ah, yes, of course: It's not the emails containing highly sensitive national security information, but the fact that those awful Brit tabloids are, you know, *telling* people about it! See, those foreigners are trying to interfere in our elections yet again!

Guess if the narrative that Wikileaks was really done by the Russians didn't convince enough voters, the Dems wanted to have a backup scapegoat. Nice.

"This is the sentence, published in September by the Daily Mail, that led to Hillary Clinton's new FBI woes: "Anthony Weiner carried on a months-long online sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl during which she claims he asked her to dress up in 'school-girl' outfits for him on a video messaging application and pressed her to engage in 'rape fantasies.'"

By the time of that report, Weiner's sexting relapse had been exposed weeks earlier by the New York Post, which published messages that the former New York congressman exchanged with a "40-something divorcee." The New York Post story prompted Weiner's wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, to announce she was leaving her husband, but it did not suggest criminal behavior.

The Daily Mail's follow-up story, however, alleged that Weiner had traded sexually explicit messages with an underage girl and caught the FBI's attention. As The Washington Post noted Friday, in the process of investigating Weiner, the FBI examined a computer shared by Weiner and Abedin and happened upon emails deemed relevant to the agency's earlier probe of the way Clinton and aides handled classified information during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

Thus we have Friday's news that the FBI is renewing its inquiry into Clinton's use of a private email server. All because of story in a British tabloid.

I wrote in August about the way British tabloids influence election coverage here in the States, but this is next-level stuff. It is one thing to revive conspiracy theories about the death of Bill Clinton administration counsel Vince Foster; it is another to spur FBI action that rocks the race less than two weeks before Election Day."

The author of the piece is "Callum Borchers." Pic here:

Callum Borchers

Notice how deftly Borchers re-framed the "problem:" It's not the emails that almost certainly showed evidence of top secret communication intercepts, but rather "All because of story in a British tabloid."

No. Not even close. But Dems and their hordes of low-information voters will never figure it out.

Interestingly the very first item in the story is a 3-minute video of Hilliary giving a press conference in Des Moines, captioned "Hillary calls on FBI to release information..." Which both Hilliary and Comey know he must refuse to do...cuz "ongoing investigation." Mission accomplished.

[begin]

"Newly discovered emails found on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner thrust the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server back into the presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election.

Officials said the discovery prompted a surprise announcement Friday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency would once again be examining emails related to Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

In a letter to lawmakers, Comey said the FBI would take “appropriate investigative steps” to determine whether the newly discovered emails contain classified information and to assess whether they are relevant to the Clinton server probe.

The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The correspondence included emails between Abedin and Clinton, according to a law enforcement official.

Federal officials have been examining sexually suggestive online messages that Weiner allegedly exchanged with a teenage girl. The link to the Weiner investigation was first reported by the New York Times.

Comey’s announcement appears to resume the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s server, which previously ended in July with no charges.

The announcement could reshape a presidential race that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has been leading in most public polls. It was immediately hailed by Republican nominee Donald Trump, who told supporters at a New Hampshire rally that “perhaps, finally, justice will be done.” The crowd responded with pumped fists and chants of “Lock her up! Lock her up!”

Clinton told reporters Friday night in Iowa that she learned of the newly discovered emails only after the letter to Congress was made public.

“I’m confident whatever [the emails] are will not change the conclusion reached in July,” she said. “Therefore, it’s imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay.”

Asked about the connection to Weiner, Clinton said: “We’ve heard these rumors. We don’t know what to believe.”

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta called it “extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election.”

Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some *or all* of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI. ['Nothing new here, citizen. Move on.']

Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”

The letter, which was three paragraphs long, contained few details.

He wrote that the FBI, in connection with an “unrelated case,” had recently “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation.”

Comey wrote that he was briefed on the new material Thursday. “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” he wrote.

An FBI spokesman on Friday declined to elaborate, and a spokesman for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch declined to comment.

Comey provided no details about the unrelated case that resulted in the discovery of the new emails.

The official said that Comey, once told about the find, felt an obligation to inform Congress, since he had previously told lawmakers that the investigation had been completed.

Abedin, who has worked for Clinton since the 1990s, is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign. She exchanged thousands of emails with Clinton while serving as her deputy chief of staff at the State Department. She, like Clinton, used an email address routed through the private server.

Weiner, who represented a New York City congressional district, resigned from his House seat in 2011 after he accidentally tweeted an explicit photo of himself that he had intended to send to a supporter.

The federal inquiry into Weiner’s contact with the teenager was sparked by a September report in the Daily Mail tabloid. [Once again--as always--we learn about scandals on Democrats not from *our* media but from overseas papers. How...helpful...for Democrats, though not for American voters.]

When Comey announced the FBI’s findings in July, he said that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified material, which was found among the emails exchanged on her private server.

He said then that his investigators had found evidence of potential violation of laws governing the handling of classified information.

But he said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges because investigators had not found evidence that there had been intentional mishandling of classified material, or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.

Comey had come under *enormous pressure from Republicans* for his recommendation to bring no case against Clinton. [What kind of "pressure," exactly? The director can't be fired. What else could congress do to pressure him?]

Podesta on Friday cited the political pressure on Comey in questioning the director’s actions, saying that Republicans had been “browbeating” career FBI officials “to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”

Democrats said Friday that the lack of detail from the FBI allowed Republicans to mischaracterize its actions. Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN that Comey was “unleashing a wildfire of innuendo.”

The top Democrat on the ­Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), issued a blistering statement Friday expressing shock at the FBI’s vague announcement, which she said “played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump.”

“The FBI has a history of extreme caution near Election Day so as not to influence the results,” she said. “Today’s break from that tradition is appalling.”

Wonder if Feinstein would have "issued a blistering statement" if emails had been discovered between Trump to Putin showing collusion, and the FBI had re-opened an investigation? Do you think she'd condemn that? No, I didn't think so either.

Then at 9:30am the next day--Saturday, just 12 hours after the story broke--the Post posted a much different twist on the event. According to the Post the real story here isn't the discovery of tens of thousands of emails that might prove Clinton compromised our most sensitive national security methods, but outrage against Comey for reopening the investigation.

FBI Director James B. Comey decided to inform Congress that he would look again into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails during her time as secretary of state for two main reasons: a sense of obligation to lawmakers and a concern that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a coverup.

The rationale, described by officials close to Comey’s decision-making on the condition of anonymity, prompted the FBI director to release his brief letter to Congress on Friday and upset a presidential race less than two weeks before Election Day. It placed Comey again at the center of a highly partisan argument over whether the nation’s top law enforcement agency was unfairly influencing the campaign.

In a memo explaining his decision to FBI employees soon after he sent his letter to Congress, Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.”

“Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record,” Comey wrote to his employees.

The last time Comey found himself in the campaign spotlight was in July, when he announced that he had finished a months-long investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified information through the use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. After he did so, the denunciation was loudest from Republican nominee Donald Trump and his supporters, who accused the FBI director of bias in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. There was also grumbling within FBI ranks, with a largely conservative investigative corps complaining privately that Comey should have tried harder to make a case.

This time the loudest criticism has come from Clinton and her supporters, who said Friday that Comey had provided too little information about the nature of the new line of investigation and allowed Republicans to seize political ground as a result. The inquiry focuses on Clinton emails found on a computer used by former U.S. congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), now under investigation for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s wife. The couple have since separated.

“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a statement. “The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”

Officials familiar with Comey’s thinking said the director on Thursday faced a quandary over how to proceed once the emails, which number more than 1,000 and may duplicate some of those already reviewed, were brought to his attention.

Comey had just been briefed by a team of investigators who were seeking access to the emails. The director knew he had to move quickly because the information could leak out.

The next day, Comey informed Congress that he would take additional “investigative steps” to evaluate the emails after deciding the emails were pertinent to the Clinton email investigation and that the FBI should take steps to obtain and review them.

In July, Comey had testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the FBI was finished investigating the Clinton email matter and that there would be no criminal charges. Comey was asked at the hearing whether he would review any new information the FBI came across.

[Link to story: "Hillary Clinton calls on FBI to release information on emails"]

“My first question is this, would you reopen the Clinton investigation if you discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial?” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Comey during the hearing.

“It’s hard for me to answer in the abstract,” Comey replied at the hearing. “We would certainly look at any new and substantial information.”

In the Friday memo to his employees, Comey acknowledged that the FBI does not yet know the import of the newly discovered emails. “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,” Comey wrote.

Comey’s action has been blasted by some former Justice Department officials, Clinton campaign officials and Democratic members of Congress.

“Without knowing how many emails are involved, who wrote them, when they were written or their subject matter, it’s impossible to make any informed judgment on this development,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who called the release “appalling.”

“However, one thing is clear: Director Comey’s announcement played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump, who is already using the letter for political purposes. And all of this just 11 days before the election,” Feinstein said.

Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

“Comey’s behavior in this case from the beginning has been designed to protect his reputation for independence no matter the consequences...to people under investigation or to the FBI’s own integrity,” Miller said.

Miller and other former officials pointed to a 2012 Justice Department memo saying that all employees have the responsibility to enforce the law in a “neutral and impartial manner,” which is “particularly important in an election year.”

Miller said he had been involved in cases related to elected officials in which the FBI waited until several days after an election to send subpoenas. “They know that if they even send a subpoena, let alone announce an investigation, that might leak and it might become public and it would unfairly influence the election when voters have no way to interpret the information,” Miller said.

Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Comey “had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”

He added: “It is not the function of the FBI director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant.”

C'mon, Post: Comey's acknowledgement that the emails may not be significant is the telltale that he isn't remotely trying to damage Hilliary. He wrote the letter to the congressional chairmen to try to prevent rank-and-file agents from disclosing the damaging material they'd seen on Weiner's laptop.

This was a ploy from the outset, designed to insulate Hilliary. And it's working.

What do these cities (>250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common? Could it be...

Detroit, Mi hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961 Buffalo, NY hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954 Cincinnati, Oh hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984 Cleveland, Oh hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989 Miami, Fl has never had a Republican mayor St. Louis, Mo hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949 El Paso, Tx has never had a Republican mayor Milwaukee, Wi hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908 Philadelphia, Pa hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952 Newark, NJ hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907

"Don't pay any attention to this, citizens! It is nothing but a coincidence! A fluke! A statistical nothing. We have to keep electing Democrats to run government at all levels, cuz that's the only way to have nice things and civilized cities!

That's why you should vote for Hilliary! Cuz she's smart. And equally important, her party--which of course you should join and contribute lotsa cash to--is led by the brightest, most enlightened thinkers, like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! Our policies are absolutely brilliant--which is why we have nice cities instead of the awful disasters of cities headed by Rethuglicans!

Wednesday, October 26

Dems claim to be horrified by Trump saying he might contest the *reported* election results! They *never* would!

Democrats claimed to be horrified when Trump said he would decide whether to contest the reported results of the election after it was over. See, Democrats claim that's just an awful thing to do--like you think there might be fraud or something. How could any American think there might be fraud in an election? After all, Democrats would never think of encouraging illegal aliens to vote, or encouraging Democrat voters to vote multiple times! Perish the thought!

So it's just awful for Trump to say that! I mean, we Dems would NEVER contest the...results...of... Uh, never mind.

Sunday, October 23

Media double-standards, part gazillion

Ya gotta love all the Democrat-loving mainstream media: According to their stories, Hillary lying about about Trump supporters being violent--while operatives working for the Democrat National Committee are bragging about paying
thugs to incite violence and scheming to commit vote fraud is perfectly
OK. Nothing to see here, folks.

But Trump complaining that Hillary's party is sending out thugs and committing vote fraud? Why, that's totally ill-mannered and completely beyond the pale. In fact it suggests he's too dangerous to be president!

Dems now pushing the fable that "the Russians" may post "fake" evidence of vote fraud. Say what??

Days after the first of those damaging emails were leaked by Wikileaks--like the one showing top Dem operatives bragging about having committed vote fraud for 50 years, and about inciting violence at Trump rallies--top Democrats (i.e. Hillary's campaign honchos) rolled out their Fable: They claimed the emails were actually stolen by Russian hackers (working for Putin, of course), and that the leaks were an attempt by Russia to help Trump win.

This story was repeated endlessly to eager Dem-allied "journalists," who eagerly pushed the cover story onto all front pages and evening news broadcasts around the country.

Just days later the Dems came out with a *second* Fable: that the Russians were poised to post fake documents "proving" widespread vote fraud by Democrats.

This is a fabulous lie, because if the Dems DO steal the election, it primes the media to tell Americans that the reports are just Russian fakes, and should be ignored.

In other words they've set the stage so that the public will already "suspect" that any evidence of widespread vote fraud shouldn't be investigated, since it's obviously fake. It's absolutely diabolical.

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities reportedly have
expressed concern that Russian-backed hackers could try to undermine the
upcoming presidential elections by posting documents purporting to show
voter fraud.

Officials, who spokes on condition of anonymity,
told Reuters that the election system is too large for hackers to change
the outcome of the Nov. 8 elections. However, theyre more worried about
hackers posting documents that would appear to show evidence of voter
fraud to create a stir during the process.

They added that there
was no evidence that a plan was in place to do so, but have warned
election officials to be vigilant for hacking attempts. U.S. blamed
Russia for the hacking of the Democratic Party and organizations tied to
the party to interfere with the election process.

Officials
familiar with voting systems told Reuters that evidence indicates that
Russian-backed hackers have tried to attack voter registration databases
in more than 20 states and tracing the hack attacks.

Note the unattributed source--"U.S. intel and law-enforcement authorities"--who always speak anonymously. I have yet to see a story that attributes these reports to a named person.

And the reports are always very speculative: "Russian-backed hackers could try to undermine the
upcoming presidential elections by posting documents purporting to show
voter fraud." Yes, and the moon could be made of cheese.

And notice how quickly (3rd 'graf) the "reporter" worked in the Democratic fable that "The U.S. blamed
Russia for the hacking of the Democratic Party and organizations tied to
the party to interfere with the election process." Of course "the U.S." did no such thing. Rather, anonymous Democrats in bed with their media allies planted stories *claiming* this had been shown.

It hadn't, hasn't and isn't likely to be. But it makes a great scare-story to make undecideds think Trump is a Putin ally.

Watch for evidence of massive fraud. In particular, watch for precincts where the total number of votes counted is unusually high percentage of registered voters.

Friday, October 21

Dems: "Trump is nuts for warning that it may be possible to rig the presidential election" "Wait, Russia is trying to rig the election!"

I find it amusing that Hillary, Obama, the Dems and the entire Mainstream Lying Media are accusing Russia of trying to rig
the U.S. presidential election--while at the same time screaming that Trump is totally insane for warning that the presidential election can be rigged.

If it wasn't for double-standards, Democrats and the media would have no standards at all.

Democrats in government have found a hot new cause: bullying people into
pretending that cross-dressing men are actually women. And on cue, the corrupt, useless United Nations has found a "right" for which it will demand funds, through the World Health Organization:

They have declared that there is "a right to reproduce."

They're drafting "standards" that provide that men and women who want but don't have children will be classified as "infertile," giving them a "disability" and making them eligible for all manner of government benefits.

The World Health Organisation ruling is likely to place pressure on governments to give lesbian couples free in-vitro fertilization treatments.

As usual, we can look to California to see how close we are to the cliff moonbats want to push us off: In California gays and lesbians are already guaranteed [IVF] access if they have group health insurance. This benefit is based not by a claim of disability but "merely" of equal
rights–requiring all health-insurance policies to pay for fertility treatments for same-sex couples in the same
manner as received by heterosexuals with demonstrated biological
infertility.

And they wonder why healthcare costs keep rising so fast.

Bureaucracy...is the anything it won't do to get votes from credulous liberals?

Company pressured to fire employee who called the emperor a communist

Governments rarely take away rights all at once. Instead they and their surrogates nibble away a bit at a time. Most people don't even notice. But a decade later you realize what you can't do any more that you could always do before.

Latest example: After a respected financial adviser in Nebraska called Obama a communist, and evil, state regulators went after his employer, demanding all manner of records on the guy, asking if they had a policy against their employees making public statements of a political nature and so on.

And while a U.S. appeals court agreed with a lower court that
the regulators “targeted Bennie partly in retaliation for his
constitutionally protected political speech,” the court also said the agency’s harassing
activities did not violate his free-speech rights.

After a costly six-year legal fight, Bennie, assisted by his attorneys at the nonprofit, public interest Pacific Legal Foundation, is taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Our First Amendment rights can be cancelled out if government can
punish people for exercising those rights,” said PLF attorney Wen Fa.
“That is what happened to Bob Bennie — he was the victim of a vendetta
campaign by bureaucrats because they were offended by his political
views.”

In 2010 Bennie worked for Boston-based LPL Financial. Things went south shortly after he was quoted in a Feb. 1, 2010story about his political views and his leadership in the tea party, in which he called Obama a “communist” and said the president is “dishonest,” an “evil man.”

The bureaucrats at the state's Department of
Banking and Finance, didn’t like that kind of talk. And they were
going to do something about it. Rodney Griess, a "compliance
supervisor," didn’t seem to care for a commercial in which Bennie rode a horse
and pledged he would give his customers “a hundred dollars towards the
purchase of a firearm.”

Geiss thought the offer
“unusual” and suspected Bennie had not gotten approval from LPL
to run the commercial. After the article appeared, Griess told a colleague that an upcoming
call with Bennie’s employer would cover the financial adviser’s “recent
string of activities; i.e., lack of… disclosure, gun slingin’ ads, and
calling Obama a ‘communist’ and an ‘evil’ man issues.”

After the call, Griess wrote an email seeking a follow-up call with
LPL and stating that it “would be nice to know” whether LPL anticipated
imposing any “heightened supervision, more frequent/announced exam
schedule, specialized advertisement approval process or other
sanction(s) that may provide the Department with a little better sense
that the firm is ‘on top of’ addressing this type of activity which in
turn may be of some comfort to us and really is in the best interest of
the public.”

Department agents asked whether LPL had any guidelines about agents
like Bennie publicly communicating their political views. This shows that the inquiry by the department was at least partly over the guy's political statements.
Griess issued a number of orders to LPL, and warned the company that the agency would use all available measures against both Mr. Bennie and/or LPL Financial to
insure compliance.

Feeling that he was being targeted for his political statements, Bennie took his complaints about the agency to then-Gov. David Heineman, who asked the agency to respond.
Griess, in looking over his director’s draft response to the governor, noted that it didn't mentions Bennie’s comments in the newspaper
article. Griess explained he “felt compelled to at least mention it”
because even though the comments were clearly not subject to the agency's regulatory purview, "the comments made
regarding the President...do
tend to be quite polarizing to say the least, not all that dissimilar
to the firearm purchase statement. Anyway, it’s another piece of the
puzzle and just saw that it was missing.”

His boss included the point in a revised response.

After months of constant regulatory pestering, LPL fired Bennie in early November 2010.
In mid-2011, the financial adviser filed a public records request and
received the department’s internal communications. It was then he
learned how much he and LPL had been scrutinized and harassed.

Bennie sued. A federal district court found “the state regulators were partly
motivated by Bennie’s speech and ‘(s)ome of the questions they asked LPL
would not have been asked had it not been for [Bennie’s] political
activity.” Nonetheless, the judge ruled in the state's favor
because their retaliation would not have deterred "an ordinary person in
Bennie’s position" from continuing to speak.

Bennie appealed. The appeals court described the regulators' actions as “unconstitutional.”
“For the state regulators to allow their apparent disagreement with
or even distaste for what Bennie had to say politically, or how he said
it, to influence how the department treated him and his employer was
wholly inappropriate — and absolutely inconsistent with the First
Amendment,” the court wrote in its decision. “That
inappropriate, unconstitutional conduct was wrong." But the appeals court also ruled in favor of the state.

In agreeing to take Bennie's case to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Pacific Legal Foundation charged that the regulators’ actions were totally
unconstitutional. As the PLF has won its last nine
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems to have a good chance of winning again. But that's hardly the point.

The point is that every other person working for a company has just been put on notice that if you make a comment critical of the government, or Democrats, you can end up out of work. How does this square with free speech? How can one claim there's free speech when a regulator can pressure a company to fire an employee for saying something that some pencil-neck bureaucrat doesn't like?

Imagine the screams from liberals if a company was pressured to fire a liberal for making statements critical of a Republican president...

The Constitution is no longer operative in the age of the emperor--and the future queen. Free speech only exists for liberals and their allies.

"Throwing good money after bad"--Hillary says she can "fix" Obamacare, Syria, Libya, etc

Richard Fernandez is one of the sharpest analysts I've seen. He was born in a country that withstood a strong communist movement, and saw first-hand how ruthless the Left is in its lust for absolute power. He sees the same signs here that he saw in his native country.

I've adapted the ideas below from one of his blog posts, which you can read in its entirety here.
He looks at how easily the failure of Obamacare could be predicted--and was, in fact, predicted. But Obama and the Democrats were determined to pass it regardless of whether it would work or not. Their objective was to give the poor health insurance--even if paid for entirely by working taxpayers.

In the Democrats' view Obamacare HAD to work, because...well, their intentions were good (some of 'em, anyway). As far as the Left is concerned any dumb, costly program is great as long as one has good intentions.

And of course now Hillary wants to pour even more tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into this ghastly, horrible failure. As she put it in one of the debates, "We can't just rip it up and throw it away."

This, friends, is called "throwing good money after bad." And it's easy to see why the Dems--having supported this disaster so strongly--don't want to admit it's a costly white elephant...a horrible failure. Because that would suggest they're too incompetent to run anything, let alone a whole nation.

Now, as insurers declare that they'll stop offering health insurance in entire states, and as companies have announced that premiums will be hiked by up to 80 percent starting in January, working Americans are finally--finally--starting to wake up and realize they've been sold a bunch of crap. The AP says that
Minnesota's governor--Democrat Mark Dayton, once one of Obamacare's strongest
supporters--has proclaimed the Affordable Care Act is "no longer
affordable."

Solidly-democrat Minnesota was one of the states that opted to start its own health-insurance "exchange," called "Mnsure." It suffered a series of disasters. In January of 2014 an independent consultant recommended Mnsure be shut down, and that Minnesotans buy insurance on the federal "exchange." Dayton refused the recommendation and instead poured tens of millions more taxpayer dollars into trying to keep Mnsure afloat. He insisted that Obamacare was a great idea and that the state exchange would eventually be a financial success.

Finally last week--two years after rejecting the consultant's recommendation--Dayton declared that "The reality is that the Affordable Care Act is no
longer affordable for an increasing number of people.” That came a week after Bill Clinton admitted that
Obamacare was “the craziest thing in the world,” and that consumers
“wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.”

But hey, why scrap a ghastly idea if you can just pour in more taxpayer bucks? At the 2nd presidential debate Hillary said one reason to elect her president
was that she would fix Obamacare.
Like Dayton, she cited the enormous effort that had already
gone into the failed program, saying "We can't just rip it up and throw it
away."

She's made the same argument in the field
of foreign policy. She says you should elect her president because she'll 'fix' Syria.
At the second presidential debate she pushed the idea of "a U.S.-led military intervention" to stop
Russian and Syrian planes from bombing rebel-held areas like
Aleppo, "even if it meant clashing with Russia."

For those who haven't been following the Syrian civil war, ISIS and allied forces have been fighting the Syrian government of Bashir Assad--who's been a protege of Russia for decadees. The Russians are understandably supporting Assad, and are using their air force to strike ISIS positions in several locations, including Aleppo. The emperor's administration opposes Assad. But if Russia is killing ISIS fighters, why should we side with ISIS against Russia? By all accounts, to any rational person ISIS is worse than Assad. We should be wishing the Russians success. But Hilliary, in her infinite wisdom, wants to stop Russia and Syria from using air power "even if it means clashing with Russia."

This is nuts. But by her own proclamation, this is the kind of policy Hillary supports.

From
Aleppo to Mosul, Yemen to Libya; from the Ukraine to Iran; from Japan
to the Philippines the number of places that need fixing keeps growing. Each time Hillary proudly touts her familiarity with these problems as reason for putting her
in the White House--even if her policies (as advised to the emperor) caused the problems in the first place.

The homily "we can't just rip it up and throw it away" is
psychologically seductive. People who've lost thousands gambling are unwilling to quit, simply because they've dropped ("invested") so much money. If they just stay resolute, surely they'll eventually prevail, right?

This logical fallacy applies to a wide variety of situations,
from the trillion dollar Obamacare debacle to the hundreds of billions
the emperor spent trying to win friendship with Iran. How has that worked out? "If we just give them a few more tens of billions...."

Of course with the Mainstream Media ignoring video of Democrat operatives bragging about causing riots and pushing vote fraud, Americans will neither know nor care...until disaster--the foreseeable fruits of all these Democrat policies--actually arrives. And of course by that time it's too late.

Sex attacks prompt Swedish cops to advise women not to go out alone at night. Yeah, that's a great solution.

A surge in attacks and assaults on women by so-called "refugees"--all males, all military-age--in Sweden has forced police
in the city of Östersund to advise women not to go outdoors
alone.

The warning comes after a poll conducted by Swedish newspaperAftonbladet found nearly half of all women in the country are now scared to exercise alone at night. Almost one-third of those polled said if they were away from home after dark, they would rather stay at a friend’s house than try to get home alone.

Oh, say liberals and Dems, that's Europe, so that has absolutely no relevance to us here! President Obama (pbuh) and president Clinton can continue to import tens of thousands of refugees (99% of whom, curiously, are Muslim) into the U.S. and settle them in small towns, and not only won't we see any negative consequences, we'll all be FAR better off because...well, you know..."diversity is strength."

Yeah.

It's okay, citizen. You'll love preznit Clinton. After all, look how much Billy Jeff raised America's standing in the world! The rest of the world really respected us because of his sound judgment and firm resolve! And there can be no doubt that his wife will revive that same level of ethics, morality and democracy! Yay!

With sarcasm now off: The seeds of jihad, terror and death planted in the U.S. by emperor Obozo will bear bitter fruit for you or a loved one sooner or later. Liberals will totally deny that the Democrats bear any responsibility for this ghastly decision. And the mainstream media--Democrat-run and Dem-loving--will agree.

First let's get something straight: No one disputes that slavery was ghastly, but America didn't enslave blacks. African blacks were captured by other blacks and sold to slave traders, who brought them to the colonies. It's true that after the Revolutionary War the courts issued decisions that supported that institution (the most infamous being the Dred Scott decision), but to say "America enslaved blacks" is twisting history.

When a "major" "news magazine" prints something like this, lots of people just soak it up without a moment of critical analysis. When a huge majority of black Americans take this as a true statement, it's easy to understand why they'd be worried or angry or nervous or whatever.

But "enslaving black people again" isn't remotely plausible. So by publishing the fevered ranting of a reliably Democrat leftist, Time has fanned the flames of race war. To say that's totally irresponsible is being far too kind.

The editors at Time should know better. But of course their purpose--like Smiley's--was to denigrate the Republican candidate and generate votes for Shrillary. They don't give a damn what other consequences may ensue. And are already here: Look at the number of ambush-style shootings of cops by blacks this year. Think fanning the flames of race hatred isn't already having consequences?

The Time editors who approved this ghastly, race-baiting article should be shot forthwith.

In 2000 Gore said he wouldn't concede the election, and the media approved; but Trump? HORRORS!

The mainstream press is awash with supposed outrage after Trump refused to say that he would concede the election if he lost. Of course an accurate wording of that question would be "if the results reported by the state-run bodies claimed he lost," since there can be no doubt the Democrats will stuff ballot boxes, shred mail-in votes for Trump, mail ballots to overseas members of the military too late for them to be returned in time to be counted, and a dozen other dirty tricks they've been caught at before.

But that's just quibbling: The bigger point here is that in 2000 Al Gore refused to concede defeat in that year's election--and the media didn't say a single critical word.

For college students, the 2000 election came down to one state: Florida. The vote there was close, and Gore quite properly asked for a recount, saying he wanted "to make sure all votes were counted." Hard to argue with that. Indeed, Democrats have been pushing that point for years.

But when a Republican says the same thing, suddenly it's a huge horror, eh?

But hey, not a shred of bias in your imperial press, citizen. In fact we're horrified that you'd even think such a thing.

The facts on Democrat vote fraud and the Obama administration, as of now:

1. A young man who wants an honest government and honest elections used a hidden camera to video two long-time Democrat operatives--Bob Creamer and Scott Foval--admitting to paying people to start riots at Trump rallies. They also bragged about having committed vote fraud to elect Democrat candidates--for 50 years!

2. Creamer has been a consultant to both the Dem national committee and Clinton's campaign.

4. Yesterday Creamer announced he was "stepping back" from both positions.

5. In 2005 Creamer was convicted of "bank fraud"--to the tune of $2.3 MILLION--and served a grand total of five months for the fraud. You'd think no reputable administration would touch this guy with a ten-foot pole--let alone have their emperor meet with the guy 47 times. Ah, but this administration doesn't care--because they run the f'n media.

6. Creamer is married to a Democrat congresswhore from Illinois--Jan Schakowski--who has been in congress for 17 years. Most observers of Illinois politics think Schakowski is crooked.

7. When one reporter--one--had the audacity to ask the emperor's press secretary (Josh Earnest) what was going on with this guy meeting with the emperor 47 times, the spokesman's response was to imply that the video was probably inaccurate--but he wouldn't say in what particular he was claiming the video was inaccurate. Earnest also refused to answer questions about the purpose of the meetings with the emperor.

8. A spokeswhore for "Hillary for America"--Zac Petkanas--set up the cover story this way:

'Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context,' but 'some of the language and tactics referenced in the video are troubling even as a theory or proposal never executed.'

Note the cunning inference: "...even as a theory or proposal never executed." The Clinton campaign already knows that no one will ever have the balls to investigate to find out how much was actually "executed," so this cunning bastard can *imply* that this was all just "a proposal never executed." Isn't that clever?

9. You won't see more than a few seconds of reference to any of this in the Democrat-controlled media, for obvious reasons. And the few seconds you do hear will be to try to discredit the story. Because this isn't just a "smoking gun"--it's an atomic-bomb-size scandal. Any other president, presidential candidate and their party would be utterly discredited by this. But Democrats are scandal-proof--because they run the mainstream media.

10. The link in item 3 is to the UK's "Daily Mail." No U.S. paper would dare to print this story. Bloggers will, but they only reach people who know about them. And they'll only be free to do that for a few more months, until the imperial government decides to force anyone wanting to post political content on the Net to get a pricey license from the FCC. They'll try to "justify" this by claiming that unregulated posts on the internet "hurt peoples' feelings" or something equally dumb. And a majority of Americans will nod in agreement.

Wednesday, October 19

If her treasonous carelessness with TOP SECRET cables on an unsecure private email server, or her lies about Benghazi, didn't dent your support for Hilliary, the following video should. It's the smoking gun.

If you still believe Hillary is running an honest campaign--or if you think she's horribly crooked but can't convince your relatives or friends--watch the following video. It shows Democrat operatives who *claim* to be working at the direction of the DNC and Hillary bragging about how they commit vote fraud, and incite riots at Trump rallies.

Oh, you may think this is just fiction, that the people shown never worked for the Dems. Actually they were just fired yesterday. That should tell you something.

And you can bet they were "fired" with the promise of huge payoffs if they'd deny everything, or say they recognized the hidden camera and were just playing the interviewer.

Fact is, this is the smoking gun. Vote fraud, voter intimidation, starting riots at opposition rallies--you name it, they did it.

Tuesday, October 18

Leader of Europe's largest conservative party to be tried for "hate speech." Read what he said!

Western Europe used to be a very free place. Liberals used to be for "free speech."

Neither of those things is true today.

Today if you're in western Europe and say something the "special" people don't like, you can be tried for "hate speech" and jailed.

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and leader of that country's conservative "Freedom Party." In 2014 he asked a crowd of supporters "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands?" Dutch Muslims promptly accused him of "hate speech."

In one of the most assinine statements by a leftist judge in...oh, at least a week...one of the judges who voted to send the case to trial said that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance."

How can one claim the people have "freedom of expression" if they're banned from saying things that some judge considers "feeding intolerance"? This is the stuff of communist regimes.

The asshole judge added that prosecuting Mr Wilders will "not affect his political freedoms or that of this Freedom Party."

Riiight, asshole: You ban them from speaking out, and put the party's leader on trial for doing so, but insanely claim prosecuting the guy won't "affect his political freedoms or that of this Freedom Party."

Insane. Literally.

And if you don't believe that's coming to the U.S. you've obviously been asleep for the last couple of years. The Left is positively salivating in its eagerness to ban speech it doesn't like.

Monday, October 17

Weirdness at Hillary rally at Temple University--video

I'm not an Alex Jones fan. The guy's got lots of goofy ideas. But with that said, even a poorly-educated self-promoter can sometimes uncover good material.

Hillary had a rally at Temple University, and one of Jones's reporterettes was on-hand. She noticed some very unusual things: First, a day or two before the rally the campaign website removed her entire rally schedule for the next 3 days or so. If you want to have people attend your rally it's hard to figure out a good reason for that.

When the reporter sought to enter the venue a bearded guy at the door said she couldn't enter because "the fire marshall says we're at capacity."

Keep this phrase in mind because it'll be re-visited later.

After the rally was over the intrepid reporter just walked right in--and found barely 200 chairs set up in a narrow arc around the stage. Lots of spare floor space. And no one had started folding chairs up yet.

"Fire marshall said we're at capacity," huh?

She also finds a crowd of very young people milling around outside after the rally. She interviews a few and asks 'em if they go to Temple U. Turns out they're *high school students* who were bused in as a large group, with teachers and escorts. Seems like the campaign needed bodies to fill seats. Of course they could simply have opened the doors to the public--but obviously didn't dare do that.

So Hilliary can't get 200 people to attend her rally, while Trump packs in 20,000 or so. And yet "all" the polls show Hilliary way ahead, eh? And yes, she'll win it--by fraud. Of course everyone will know, but won't be able to do a thing about it.

If you had a video of postal workers opening absentee ballots and shredding those marked for Trump, who would you call? Think the corrupt FBI would care?

Friday, October 14

Recognize this woman?

Obama's record on foreign policy

There's a saying dating back to Roman times: If you want peace, prepare for war.
It would seem at least plausible that the reverse is also true: If a nation is known to opponents to be unequivocally opposed to ever fighting for anything, the risk of being attacked increases. Which brings us to the emperor's position on international relations.

Obama and the Dems have an amazing record of failure in foreign policy: Turning Libya into a civil war zone. Obama declared the "red line" if Bashir Assad used chemical weapons, then folded, then claimed he never said any such thing. Giving heavy weapons--including shoulder-fired missiles--to sketchy groups in the Syrian theater only to have the whole group switch sides to supporting ISIS. Claiming the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a video on the Net, despite knowing this was a lie.

Finally the utter disaster that is the nuclear non-treaty treaty with Iran, the terms of which the emperor first concealed from the American people and even congress, then lied about.

Now the leader of Russia smells weakness, and is missile-rattling to see if Obama will cave yet again.

The emperor and his lackeys--endlessly praised by the media as the smartest, most clever people on the planet-- found they weren't half as clever as they thought.

No American should be surprised by the results. After all, prior to winning the presidency Obama had zero experience doing anything of substance. He and his lackeys had spent their entire adult lives learning
how to raise money, craft talking points, lie persuasively, deliver talking points convincingly to adoring supporters, fund opposition research to disqualify political opponents, defend or deny authorship of programs that failed, and plant press releases with adoring supporters posing as unbiased journalists.

Hey, with skillz like that, who could possibly have predicted problems would arise?

Of course most Americans could have predicted that
those skills would be virtually useless in running a nation with any semblance of competence.

But don't worry, citizen: the Democrats have learned from 8 years of unbroken failure, and won't be making the same mistakes twice. For example, where Obama was a total unknown except for his skin color, the Dems have extensively vetted Hillary--her foundation, Wall Street speeches, TOP SECRET emails on her private server, foundation donors, everything. Nothing shady about her at all.

Oh sure, maybe her husband met with the emperor's Attorney-general for an hour--on the latter's plane on the ramp in Phoenix, where no one could see or hear them--but that was simply a coincidence: They were both at the airport at the same time and he just happened to take a wrong turn while heading for the terminal and wound up in her plane. Happens all the time. Hey, one set of stairs looks just like the others, right?

It's also reassuring that when that little dust-up about her private server surfaced, the FBI quickly investigated, seized asked her top aides nicely for their laptop computers, then destroyed those so no secrets could possibly end up being compromised. Not that there were any secrets on 'em, of course.

Eh, what difference could it possibly make, right? Four more years of Obama is just peachy for most Americans. And she can't be impeached either, any more than the emperor. Cuz first woman prez.

Hillary announces a new program to make life fairer for all Americans

"It's come to my attention that DisneyWorld has been selling a special, higher-priced ticket called a 'fast pass' that lets buyers bypass long lines," said Secretary Clinton. "This higher-priced ticket clearly discriminates against economically disadvantaged Americans. It is unfair, and only benefits people like Donald Trump, at the expense of ordinary Americans.

"Accordingly, in my first 100 days after winning the presidency I will ask congress to appropriate $100 million to reimburse American
families that have incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level
for the cost of a 'fast pass.'"

"If the Republicans in congress continue to obstruct vital social legislation like this proposal, I will use an executive order to outlaw this practice."

"Last year the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule banning internet providers from offering customers higher-priced internet service for higher speeds, because such a system would clearly discriminate against economically disadvantaged Americans. Americans clearly believe this rule was a good one, since no one complained about the proposed new rule during the comment period.

"This shows that all good Americans believe no one should be able to use wealth to unfairly buy a good or service not available to every American. After all, fairness is one of our most cherished principles."

"If you're tired of waiting in long lines at DisneyWorld, I ask that you write your member of congress supporting this proposal. And please send a contribution to my campaign fund to ensure I'm elected. Because fairness is our most important principle. And like all Democrats, I support fairness and equality for all Americans, not just the rich.

One branch of govt gets it, the others don't

In every national park in the country, for decades the Park
Service has posted signs saying

Please don't feed the animals. They become dependent on
handouts and won't learn how to take care of themselves.

This
year the agency of the federal government that runs the Food Stamp program proudly says it's distributing food stamps--essentially "free" food--to
46 million people, which it says is the greatest number EVER on the food-stamp program.

Now, no one wants people to starve if they literally can't work. But Democrats are quite content to give freebies to people who are quite capable of working, but refuse to take a job they think isn't up to their mahvelous skill level. Far easier--and more free time!--to let taxpayers carry 'em. But only til a sufficiently high-paying job opens up for 'em. Like, Assistant Executive Director of Diversity Outreach, or similar.

And you can't stop it. At least, it's not possible as long as a Democrat is emperor.

Thursday, October 13

Vote fraud: Yet another crime Loretta and the emperor won't prosecute. Look for a lot of it in the election.

You need to know about vote fraud--mainly because if a candidate wins by means of massive vote fraud, it's too late to do anything about it.

Of course you probably think that's absurd. If fraud was massive and blatant, why on earth would the Supreme Court or congress tolerate it?

Ah, I see you're new to this country.

Forget "We want the best leader" or "This will set the supreme court for 30 years." Those are extremely critical, but there's a much more immediate motive for fraud: the award of billions of dollars of shady contracts--"consultancies" to various fed agencies, supply contracts, all manner of "special" programs that can be created by a president or congress--depends on who wins.

You need to know that virtually every big city in the U.S. is run by Democrats, and has been for decades. They know that having a Democrat president opens the federal treasury to high-speed rail, highway improvements, hundreds of millions of dollars of "community grants" to Dem constituencies and so on. Everyone has a motive to cheat.

So when employees of the federal bureau of "Citizenship Services" say they've been pressured to fast-track citizenship for current illegals--presumably so they can vote in the upcoming election--that's a hint that no tactic is off the table for the Democrats.

Want free needles and "safe spaces" to shoot up that sweet, sweet heroin? Democrats think that's a faaabulous idea--and know how to make money off it.

Think taxpayers should fund sex-changing surgery for members of the military, or prisoners, or retirees? Democrats have already pioneered that, and are looking to increase funding. They reasonably expect that those programs won't get much money under a Republican president. So they have a big reason to cheat.

And the emperor's administration has never prosecuted a Democrat for even egregious vote fraud. So since vote fraud doesn't carry any risk of prosecution for Dems, the only thing keeping Dems from casting as many fraudulent votes as possible would be love of fair play and the American way of life.

Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, that was funny.

Of course it's outrageous to think Hilliary and the Dems would try to steal the presidency by fraud, because...well, she's always been dedicated to the truth, right? And doesn't break the law.

Stop, you're killin' me here.

Once Hilliary is declared by the emperor's peeps to be the winner, no federal agency will bother investigating any claim of voter fraud, even if massive and obvious. Because no one wants to go up against the vindictive, shrieking FAB. So...fraud it is.

Of course you won't hear about vote fraud on the nightly news, nor read about it in a big-city newspaper. If you wanna learn what's going on, internet posters will pick up *local* stories in their areas. But those stories won't make it up the mainstream media chain, because everyone in the MSM loves Hilliary and hates conservatives.

And of course with Hilliary in the White House all illegals will be given U.S. citizenship, producing another 15 million Democrat voters.

In the emperor's America, free speech is only for favored groups. If you're not a member of one of those groups you're in danger of being fired if you voice an opinion that isn't "politically correct."

Now watch the precious munchkins at the university as they rationalize firing a guy for free speech: The U issued this bullshit statement: “

While free speech and open
discussion are fundamental principles of our nation and the university,
Mr. Muir’s comment was entirely inappropriate. U.Va. does
not condone actions that undermine our values, dedication to diversity
and educational mission.”

Translation for the reading-impaired: If you aren't 100% behind "diversity" you don't get to say so.

U.Va. Provost Tom Katsouleas made this even more clear, saying
the university “stands firmly against racism and social injustice of
any kind." That's wonderful. But watch as he goes on:

This position in no way squelches academic freedom, which
welcomes dissent and encourages the voices of others whose perspectives
may differ from ours — thereby adding new insights to our own. But
statements such as Mr. Muir’s do not foster intellectual exploration,
nor do they encourage the voices of others.”

Note the cunning mislead: "Academic freedom welcomes dissent." Oh, no doubt. But you don't, and neither does your shitty university. Apparently in the era of the emperor you're only free to offer an opinion if you push for killing cops or burning down buildings or towns. Offer an opinion opposing these things gets you fired.

In case firing wasn't enough of a message, a Charlottesville city councilman also asked people to boycott Muir’s business.

Residents of small French towns protest govt plan to house unvetted Muslim "refugees" in their towns

Migrants--mostly Muslims from the middle-east and North Africa--are being dispersed around the country from the huge camp in Calais that has become a flashpoint in Europe's
migrant crisis. President Francois Hollande has pledged to close the Calais camp as soon as possible, by relocating its 9,000 residents to various small towns around France "while their cases are examined."

As one would expect, Left-wing activists are supporting unlimited immigration, and running their own demonstrations supporting the relocation. As one leftist put it, "We repress these poor people. They need us, the
people who are coming from abroad. We have
everything here, we are a rich country."

In Forges-les-Bains, villagers carried signs that read "Not against migrants, but against the state"
and "Plan imposed from above = mounting anger."
Of course scattering unvetted "refugees" into small towns is exactly what the emperor is doing in the U.S. He's doing this because
democrat small-town mayors are happy to help the emperor and don't have
to be bribed. And won't complain to the media.

And if some of the "new citizens" do really bad things...well, it's in a
small town so it'd never make the network news or a national paper.
Perfect!

And if a few dozen residents of small towns are killed or raped by the invaders, no big deal. After all, small-town folks aren't organized, can't get the media's attention. And they probably won't vote for Hillary anyway, so why should we waste any concern?

Meanwhile the U.S. continues to scrap our own bombs, based on State Department data.

Over the past six months, says the Beacon, the U.S. has scrapped 114
nuclear warheads, under the terms of the START treaty, while Russia has deployed 249 more warheads than will be allowed under
START by February 2018. So unless it reverses course and starts destroying warheads rather
than building them, it pretty much looks like Russia is abrogating the
START treaty unilaterally.

This isn't just an aberration: Since the treaty went into effect in 2011 Russia has increased the number of warheads it's deployed from 1,537 to 1,796 --an increase of 259. Over the same period the U.S. has reduced its
warheads by 433.
Adding to the danger, Putin earlier this week ended Russia's agreement with
the U.S. for both nations to reduce their stocks of plutonium, used for making atom bombs.

Russia is sending a clear message that they're upping their nuclear arsenal, while our shrinks.

Four years ago your emperor ridiculed GOP challenger Mitt Romney for
calling Russia one of the U.S.' biggest threats. Members of the
Democratic Party's foreign-policy elite and the media joined in on the
derisive laughter. But once again the consistently blundering emperor has been proved completely wrong--as has Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Just weeks after we announced a deal to cooperate with Russia in
Syria, Russia told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that they didn't want to cooperate with us. Now it's added an exclamation
point by installing surface-to-air missiles in Syria. Those have no
use against ISIS because it has no air force. Those SAMs are meant
for us.

Whether one sees the Putin phenomenon in Russia as a good
thing or a bad thing, there is no question that the Russian leader is increasing their nuclear arsenal. Obama's foreign-policy
bumbling, apathy and weakness have led Putin to conclude that the U.S. is no longer willing to defend western interests.
He's convinced the U.S. will no longer respond to an attack--which is always a dangerous thing.

But fortunately we know Hillary has always been strong on defense, so under her skilled leadership...HAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilliary has always hated the military, so if the combination of so-called "elites," low-information voters (people who couldn't find Russia on a map, i.e. gimmedats) and vote fraud puts her into the oval office there's absolutely no doubt we'll get 4 or 8 more years of the Obama doctrine.

But don't worry, citizen: Under a Hilliary presidency the Russians won't attack, because all world leaders respect her so much. Reeeally. You must believe us. Because we went to Hahvahd and have high-paying jobs in media and gummint. So you can trust us to always tell you the truth!

The 72-year-old encountered three "migrants" swimming in the river. She started talking to them, and was suddenly hit from behind, pushed to the ground and raped. At the time, police were unable to trace the attacker. It was only when the invader committed yet another crime that he was arrested, and after a DNA swab was matched to the rape.

As the "migrant" was seventeen at the time of the attack, he was sentenced to just 20 months--because at 17 I guess illegals are presumed to be too young to know not to rape women.

Incredibly, the attacker was only sentenced to twenty months for this outrageous crime because the court noted that he had no criminal record and had confessed to the crime.

Austrian law says that when so-called "asylum seekers” commit serious crimes, they're supposed to be deported, in practice this is never implemented because in most cases, they cannot be returned to their countries of origin.

This is because European Union “human rights” legislation forbids the deportation of “asylum seekers” to any place where their “lives might be in danger”—a fact always used by the rapefugees to avoid being sent back home, even when it is clear that weren't fleeing danger but merely looking for free cash.

Her friend said the victim “has never been herself since the attack. She no longer dares to go outside her house alone."

Great job, EU pols. Oh wait, that's right: Obozo--your Constitution-shredding emperor--has ordered his Immigration Service not to deport illegal alien immigrants even if they commit serious crimes here. And Hilliary has vowed to continue the emperor's open-borders policy. According to her (and most other top Democrat leaders) anyone in the world should be able to come to the U.S. without any restrictions at all.

Wheee!

Of course my liberal friends think this is just faaabulous. Hopefully their children will realize what their parents have done to them before very long.

University handout lists 35 things students shouldn't say, then denies they're trying to impose political correctness on speech

They gave student leaders of the freshman orientation listing a 7-page handout listing 35 things they should avoid saying,
including phrases such as
“you have a pretty face”
“love the
sinner, hate the sin”
“we’re all part of the human race”
“I treat all
people the same”
“I know
exactly how you feel”
“I never owned slaves” and
“people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.”

According to the adminishits these phrases “widen the diversity gap.” (Can anyone tell me what 'widening the diversity gap' actually means?) The list also condemns some compliments and
encouraging words, such as calling someone “cute.”

The handout also warns against calling something "politically correct," claiming this is “an attempt to shut the other person up.”
"Oh no, citizen. No no no no! We would never try to tell people they shouldn't say politically incor--uh, unacceptable things. Never! Perish the thought!" The university’s "director of communications" told The College Fix that the 7-page handout was “just an exercise to get
volunteers to understand how language affects others. The list was not even
distributed to our first-year students, nor were the volunteers
instructed not to use the phrases.”

Oh, okay then. Glad to know this was simply "an exercise," and that you don't really intend to enforce this craziness. But why do I get the impression you're lying?

Proof of how Obama lied when he claimed not to know about Hilliary's private email account

Last October, about 6 months after the New York Times first revealed
the existence of Hillary Clinton's private email server, the emperor appeared on “60 Minutes” and denied knowing that the presumptive Democratic nominee was doing all her government business from a private email account.

Of course we now know--from recently-released FBI investigation notes--that Obama had actually sent Hillary an email using an alias that almost no one other than the two of them knew.

In her interview with the FBI, Huma
Abedin revealed that the emperor sent Hillary an email
on June 28, 2012. Obama's use of an alias known only to him and Hillary strongly suggests that the emperor personally sent the email. Does anyone really believe Obama didn’t recognize that the email he sent to Hillary didn’t end in "state.gov”?

Eh, what difference can it possibly make? After all, no one expects the president to tell people the truth, right? So where's the harm? Besides, you can't prove Obozo sent that email. Coulda been sent by some low-level staffer posing as the emperor. And he just happened to guess the emperor's secret alias.

Before the U.S. presidential election of 2012 your ignorant, egomaniacal Democrat emperor mocked his opponent for suggesting that Vladimir Putin might be a problem. During one of the 2012 debates, Obama declared that the Cold War was over and only "JV groups" like al-Qaeda remained to disturb the peace. Here's the emperor:

Gov.
Romney, I’m glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few
months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group
facing America, you said Russia. You said
Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy
back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. When it comes to our foreign policy you seem to want to import the
foreign policies of the 1980s....

Very, very clear. To anyone with a pair of functioning brain cells this clearly implied that Obozo did NOT regard Putin as a threat.

Putin was paying attention.

So how has that worked out for your executive-order-issuing, racially divisive emperor? Well in the Baltics Putin
is deploying a missile system designed to
destroy strategic targets ... arguably in breach of the
intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty.

Hey, no problem, citizen: Laws and treaties only apply to Republicans.

But wait, there's more: Russia has just
cancelled a longstanding agreement under which both nations agreed to reduce the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in their inventories. Foreign Policy magazine explains why this is a huge concern:

Putin's
decree ends one of the last remaining forms of cooperation [between Russia and the U.S.] ...enough to make 32,000
nuclear weapons.

Gosh, whaddya think has made Putin so aggessive? Well, when you have an emperor who ridicules his Republican opponent concerns about Russian aggression, that's a clear signal to Putin that Obozo doesn't think this could ever be a problem.

There's wide agreement among historians that when a nation signals that it's no longer interested in strong defense, opponents are emboldened to attack.

Your emperor has clearly announced that the U.S. will retreat and cave in to any threat. But don't worry, citizen: There won't be any consequences from this policy. Because, Obama.

And when Hillary takes the throne things will be even better! Because all world leaders respect and admire her so much.

About Me

Ex-AF pilot. While airliners are very safe, flying a single-pilot jet can be extremely demanding, especially in bad weather. It's a *huge* tribute to engineers that today's commercial jetliners are so amazingly safe!